Free tool · no signup
Ideal vs. Actual Variance Calculator
The gap between what your recipes say a period should have cost and what inventory says it did. Enter both with food sales to see the gap in dollars, in points of sales and over a year.
Marji
marji.co/tools/variance-calculator
Illustrative sample, not a restaurant result.
Variance (percentage points)
3.6%
3.6% of food sales is $78,520 a year if every period looks like this one; closing half of it is worth $39,260. Check the recipes and counts behind both numbers first, then portioning, waste and receiving.
Your numbers
- Theoretical food cost (from recipes × units sold)
- $11,180
- Actual COGS (from inventory)
- $12,690
- Food sales for the period
- $41,400
- Periods per year
- 52
- Variance (dollars)
- $1,510
- Theoretical food cost %
- 27.0%
- Actual food cost %
- 30.7%
- Annualised leakageThe period's gap × periods per year — what it costs if every period looks like this one.
- $78,520
- Value of closing half the gap
- $39,260
Re-run these numbers free at marji.co/tools/variance-calculator. Results use the inputs shown. Review quantities, units, yields and supplier costs before making a menu decision. Ingredient contribution excludes other restaurant expenses.
Print the full calculation or share a clean link to this tool. To connect a purchase cost to a dish, enter its reviewed quantities in the recipe calculator.
Cost one recipe →Common questions
What variance is normal?
Judge it against your own history rather than a rule of thumb. Variance depends on how complete your recipes, sales mix and counts are, so two kitchens' figures are not comparable. Record it every period in dollars and points; a jump from your usual level, or a gap that grows period after period, is the signal. A single count error can move one period, so check the count before chasing a spike.
Where do I look first?
Check the numbers before the kitchen: recipe quantities and costs, the counts and invoices behind actual cost, and whether the sales mix matches what was sold. Then portioning, waste and spoilage, receiving errors, comps and staff meals. Treat theft as a finding that needs evidence — a gap concentrated in a few high-value items or particular shifts that survives those checks — not as the first assumption.
My variance is negative — is that good?
Not by itself. Actual below theoretical means the kitchen used less than the recipes say: either the data is off — recipe quantities or costs set too high, a closing count that is too high, an invoice missing from purchases — or plates went out smaller than the recipe. Check those before treating it as a saving.